Lawsuit: Dismissed Supersuperking v. bibsfi4a [2023] FCR 55

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Supersuperking (Solid Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

bibsfi4a
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant $50,000 under the terms of a mutually agreed-upon contract. This contract became void under the last clause, and the Plaintiff wants their money back.

I. PARTIES
1. Supersuperking
2. bibsfi4a

II. FACTS
1. On May 3, 2023, bibsfi4a announced in The Exchange that Blue Ladder Construction held $15,000 in cash and $250,000 in assets (Exhibit A).
2. On May 10, 2023, bibsfi4a and Supersuperking agreed to the contract shown in Exhibit B.
3. The contract states “In case the value of Blue Ladder Construction INC is grossly misrepresented … the contract and its agreements stated above are voided”
4. Blue Ladder Construction has no assets. No plots were transferred to the Plaintiff. No money was transferred to the Plaintiff. Bibsfi4a was clearly aware of this, and even recognized that the contract was void but claimed that “doesn’t mean I have to refund it.” (Exhibit C).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The contract was voided by the final clause in the contract, but the Defendant is attempting to keep the money paid under the contract.
2. This is also Contract Fraud

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The contract to be declared null and void
2. $50,000 in immediate relief.
3. $10,000 in punitive damages (allowed for Fraud under the White Collar Crack-Down Act)
4. $5,000 in legal fees (less than half of the maximum permitted by the Legal Damages Act).

Evidence:

Spoiler: ”Exhibit A - Blue Ladder Announcement”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit B - The Contract”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit C - Dartanman Reached Out To Bibsfi4a On Behalf of Supersuperking”

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 16th day of June 2023

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Supersuperking v. bibsfi4a.
Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties agree to one.​

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Supersuperking
Plaintiff

v.

bibsfi4a (The Common law representing)
Defendant

The Defence counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint filed by supersuperking. The Defendant submits the following arguments in support of this motion:

I. Frivolous Case.

Your honor, the contract is entirely valid and it seems like the plaintiff has not clearly read the contract and the screenshots.
Plaintiff asserts that the contract became void under the last clause and demands the return of the $50,000 payment. However, a careful examination of the contract reveals that the only stipulation was the transfer of $50,000 in exchange of stocks as mentioned (26,489). Nowhere does the contract require the transfer of assets or plots, contrary to Plaintiff's allegations. The Defendant duly fulfilled their obligations by transferring the specified stocks, thereby fulfilling the terms of the contract.

It is also false that the company Blueladder has no assets. If carefully examined, Exhibit A shows that bibsfi4a says to Nexalin that the company has an asset- av-i008, but as argued before, the defendant is not obliged to transfer it.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's actions constitute contract fraud. However, it is crucial to note that contract fraud requires intentional misrepresentation which has not been established in this case. The contract clearly outlines the terms and obligations of both parties, and the Defendant fulfilled their obligations by transferring the specified stocks. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim of contract fraud lacks factual support.
This clearly was a trade done on the basis of stocks and assets or cash do not even come in the picture here.
The case is hence frivolous as the plaintiff did not clearly read the contract properly.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 19th day of June 2023

 

[Dartanboy]

May the Plaintiff respond to the motion to dismiss?

 

[Milkcrack]

Yes, the plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

1. The Defense doesn't actually allege a frivolous case, but that "the contract is entirely valid and it seems like the plaintiff has not clearly read the contract and the screenshots."

This is not a valid reason to dismiss the case, but a defense.

Throughout this case, I will be proving that this contract is not valid. A case cannot be dismissed on the grounds that the Defendant believes they didn't do anything wrong, or else nearly all cases would be dismissed.

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RULING ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

I. The defendant argued that the complaint was frivolous; however, their arguments did not address the frivolousness of the case. Consequently, I concur with the plaintiff that the case is not frivolous.

Although the defence arguments did not directly address the frivolousness of the case, it does not mean that they cannot be valid arguments. Therefore, I will consider them separately.

II. The defence argued that the contract was valid. However, the issue of whether or not the contract is void will be discussed in this case and should not be a reason for dismissing the complaint.

III. The defence claims that the plaintiff has not adequately established the necessary facts for 'fraud,' specifically the element of 'intentional misrepresentation.' It appears that the defence is referring to the white-collar crackdown act, which stipulates that a misrepresentation must be 'intentional or reckless' to constitute fraud.

I agree that this fact has not been properly established; therefore, I will dismiss the claim for relief number 2 'This is also Contract Fraud,' as well as any punitive damages based on fraud, without prejudice.

Spoiler: Example

The easiest way to establish all facts necessary to establish a claim for relief is to re-write the definition of a claim for relief establish in law. e.g.
Law: (7) Gambling Fraud shall be defined as " The act of fraudulently explaining how a certain gambling game works". Any party or entity which hosts a gambling game is required, to explain the game when asked.

Facts:

1. Player X explained how his gambling game worked to Plaintiff Y.
2. Player X recklessly misrepresented how the game worked.
3. Plaintiff Y assumed Player X's explanations and gambled B's amount of money and lost 'C' amount of money.

Claim for relief:
1. Due to Player X's fraudulent misrepresentation of how his gambling game work, Player X lost 'C' amount of money

.

Witouth prejudice meaning that if the plaintiff wishes to pursue relief based on fraud, they must allege all the necessary facts to establish fraud in a new complaint within 24 hours (In this thread). If the plaintiff intends to abandon this point, they must indicate their intention to do so within 24 hours.
After the plaintiff has taken either course of action, the defence must respond within 24 hours with an answer to the complaint.

(If the plaintiff has amended the complaint, the defence is allowed to file another motion to dismiss. Note that the defence may not use the same arguments as presented in this motion to dismiss unless the relevant facts of the case have changed.)

Also, for future reference, please provide the definitions and sections of the laws you are citing to avoid any confusion.

 

[Dartanboy]

Very well, the Plaintiff alleges all aspects of Fraud, which is defined as "an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission."

As seen in Exhibit A, the Defendant claimed that Blue Ladder Construction had a net worth of approx. $265,000 ($250k in assets + $15k in cash).

This was a misrepresentation. It may have been intentional, but if not, it was certainly extremely reckless, as the actual net worth of Blue Ladder was apparently $0, but may have been $15,000 + the value of "av-i008" for a total of $19,000.

The proof of the value of the Plot being $4,000 is attached.

Notably, $19,000 is less than 10% of the net worth publicly announced by the Defendant.

My client justifiably relied on this misrepresentation and lost $50k as a result.

 

[Milkcrack]

Please re-file your motion to amend the complaint as any regular motion including, which section of your complaint are beeing amended, and which facts are altered/created.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE FILING

Your honor, the Plaintiff requests to amend the filing as follows:

Under Claims for Relief, replace:
"2. This is also Contract Fraud" with:
"2. Because of the intentional or reckless misrepresentation made in Exhibit A, my client justifiably relied on the misrepresentation and suffered an actual loss of $50,000 due to that misrepresentation. This is Fraud."

MOTION TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE
The Plaintiff wishes to submit the screenshot attached as evidence showing the value of the only plot the Defense claims was part of Blue Ladder's assets.

 

[Milkcrack]

Your motion to amend has been approved. The defence has 24 hours to respond with an answer to the complaint.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Supersuperking
Plaintiff

v.

bibsfi4a (The Common law representing)
Defendant

I would like to divide this answer into two parts, defenses and rebuttal.

DEFENCES
I. Denial of Contract Voidance

The Defendant denies the Plaintiff's assertion that the contract in question became void under the last clause. The Defendant maintains that the contract was valid and enforceable, as it clearly stipulated the transfer of $50,000 in exchange for stocks. The Defendant fulfilled their obligations under the contract by transferring the specified stocks as per the terms agreed upon by both parties. Therefore, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's claim of voidance lacks merit.

REBUTTAL

I. Plaintiff says-
This was a misrepresentation. It may have been intentional, but if not, it was certainly extremely reckless, as the actual net worth of Blue Ladder was apparently $0, but may have been $15,000 + the value of "av-i008" for a total of $19,000.
The proof of the value of the Plot being $4,000 is attached.
Notably, $19,000 is less than 10% of the net worth publicly announced by the Defendant.
My client justifiably relied on this misrepresentation and lost $50k as a result.

Defendants Rebuttal.
Your honor, this is entirely false. Even though the price of the island is initially $3500, the net worth of the company is decided by the money invested in the assets. up to $200,000 of funds was paid in the purchase of the island. Here is the contract of the purchase of the island and as signed by the seller, that they received payment of $200,000 (Exhibit A). 35,000 was paid later (Exhibit B). Furthermore, I would like to bring to the courts knowledge that in Exhibit A, there are talks of industrial plots. The plot was sold by the company in my knowledge (I cant recall, a long time ago) but The Exchange never requested a company update and hence the update could not be done. No intentional misrepresentation was done. The company update done recently was done by supersuperking where he did not consult me. The same goes for the $15000 of cash , a company update was never asked.

NO intentional misrepresentation has been done , hence not committing fraud.
This was hence even not reckless as a company update was not asked by the exchange.

EVIDENCE

Exhibit A
The purchase of av-i008.

Real Estate Purchase Agreement

Real Estate Purchase Agreement © ColonelKai 2023 (1) Parties. This agreement is between ArayBroz (ig bibsfi4a) also referred to as the Buyer and Levaniko (ig LouderLeo) also referred to as the Seller. There are no parties regarding this agreement other than those stated within. (2) Nature of Exc...

docs.google.com

link to the above document ^

Exhibit B-
Payment of $35,000

Your honor, the above rebuttals are provided to the fraud aspect and not the original complaint (as rebuttal was provided in the Motion to dismiss) and the court provides assurance to consider them separately.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 20th day of June 2023

 

[Milkcrack]

Thank you for the answer. Before we move on would the parties be interested in an in-game trial to speed up the proces?

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor I would prefer to keep this on forums.

 

[Milkcrack]

Alright, we are going to move on to the opening statements. The plaintiff has 24 hours to file their opening statement.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor 24 hours have passed.

 

[Milkcrack]

I hereby charge Dartanman with 1 count of contempt of court. The plaintiff has 24 hours to file their opening statement otherwise this case will be dismissed in favour of the defence.
[ @supersuperking ] [ @Dartanman ]

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, respectfully the case should be dismissed in the favor of the defendant, as per precedents set by previous cases. Failure to respond in a case results in a contempt of court charge AND dismissal of the case. For the plaintiff had some IRL issues/unavailability they need to inform the court and ask for a extension which has not been done. For that reason, I believe the case should be dismissed in favor of the defense.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 22th day of June 2023

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER RULLING

After careful consideration of your motion to reconsider, I have taken into account your argument that the dismissal of a case is precedent when a party fails to respond within the allotted time frame.

However, since you have not provided any specific precedents, I conducted my own research. I found several cases where a case was indeed dismissed because a party did not respond within 48 hours (often more).

It is important to note that in this particular case, the time frame given was 24 hours. The plaintiff did not respond and as a result, the plaintiff has been charged with contempt of court and is still required to submit their opening statement within approximately 48 hours of the original request.

Based on these facts, it is evident that the procedure followed in this court case was stricter than the precedent. Therefore, it can be concluded that your right to a speedy and fair trial has not been infringed upon. Consequently, I am upholding the original rulling.

Dismissed cases:

1. Commonwealth of Redmont v. Redcliffe Casino - 2023 FCR 23
2. Commonwealth of Redmont v. Kitje_katje_nl et al. - 2023 FCR 1
3. The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Lavenderxblaxii - 2023 FCR 32
4. The Commonwealth v. Bibsfi4a - 2023 FCR 25

Punished but not dismissed case after 52 hours:

1. Milkcrack v. The Commonwealth of Redmont - 2022 FCR 42

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

I apologize. I read 12:40 PM when it said 12:40 AM.

I will post an Opening Statement soon.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

I request a 24 hour extension as the parties of this case are trying to settle out of court.

 

[Milkcrack]

Does the defence have any objections?

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, we are settling this out of the court. Update will be given shortly.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

The parties have settled out of court and this case may be dismissed.

 

[Milkcrack]

This case has been dismissed with prejudice because a settlement has been reached.